does this submarine aircraft carrier become more feasible if we use unmanned aircraft?

It depends on what you mean by "aircraft carrier" Remember a major use for CVN's is sustained air support--and a sub just isn't going to be able to play in that arena. If you mean "Carry a few UAV's to extend the subs sensor range and possibly provide an option to launch strikes on very high value targets..." Then it becomes a little more viable, although we'd still have to ask if it would be worth the cost when compared to long range missiles launched from air/surface units.

Logged

avatar

I think apart from those combat reform types and a few others nobody as of now is proposing a sub aircraft carrier that can replace the high volume operations of a CVN ... however as you said this might be a good idea for select strikes .. given that the tactical ICBM idea will invite unnecessary repercussions from "near Peers" and a Stealthy UAV might just have more flexibility than a single use cruise missile.

I would expect that the mission of these SSVs would be to provide fighter support to the US Navy's then (1950s) planned nuclear strike force of Martin P6M Seamster seaplanes. The Seamaster force was planned to have a range of deployable basing options including surface ships and barges protected by the Convair Sea Dart and submarines. The later would provide FRAPs close to the Soviet Union but without a SSV would have no significant anti-air protection from Soviet counter-strikes.

Logged

"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

I remember, back to mid-80's, to have read something about a Submarine-CV obtained by modifing a SSBN (in which the ICBM area would be substitute with an hangar) coupled to "Skyhook" concept (so popular in the 80s).

In this way such ship could exploit a fleet of 4/6 Sea Harrier to achieve attack missions.

Extract from “Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines” by Norman Polmar and K.J. Moore (Potomac Books). Posted here for educational purposes. For more from this excellent book check out Google Books or buy a copy:

Immediately after the war the U.S. Navy gave little thought to aircraft-carrying submarines (at the time designated SSV). A Submarine Officers Conference in 1946 noted, “No design studies should be made on this type of submarine at this time unless the Chief of Naval Operations believes that the need for such a type submarine may be required in the near future.”The development of nuclear propulsion led to some interest in aircraft-carrying submarines by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). In response to an ONR solicitation, aircraft designer Ed Heinemann – he preferred to be called an innovator – developed a series of design sketches for a fighter aircraft that could be accommodated in the massive bow hangar of the Regulus missile submarine Halibut (SSGN 587), completed in 1960. Heinemann’ sketches for ONR indicated how a new-design aircraft or his versatile A4D Skyhawk could fit into the submarine’s hangar with minimum modification. The basic Halibut hangar was 80 feet (24.4 m) long. The new-design aircraft was Douglas model 640, a turbo-jet attack aircraft that would be catapult launched from the surfaced submarine, would come down at sea on its flying boat hull, and would be recovered aboard the submarine by a telescoping crane. Depending on modifications to the hangar, the aircraft’s wings, tail fin, or nose would fold for shipboard stowage.The Navy did not pursue Heinemann’s proposals.During this period there were several proposals for nuclear-propelled, aircraft-carrying submarines. The most ambitious proposal was sponsored by the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, responsible for aircraft development. The extensive feasibility study of aircraft-carrying submarines – called Project Flying Carpet – was demonstrated by the Boeing Aircraft Company. The secret study employed the Thresher (SSN 593)-type S5W propulsion plant and, initially, hangar configuration and hull lines based on the Halibut design.The near-term submarine carrier configuration – designated AN-1 – would carry eight high-performance aircraft in two large hangars built into the forward hull. The submarine would be some 500 feet (152.4 m) long and displace 9,260 tons on the surface, larger than any U.S. submarine then planned, including the Polaris missile submarines.The starting point for AN-1 aircraft would be a modified Grumman F11F Tiger turbojet fighter. The aircraft’s standard folding wings (for carrier use) would be supplemented by a folding tail fin, and a large rocket booster would be used for launching from a “zero-length” catapult. The launchers would be elevated to the vertical (90°) to launch aircraft. The pilots would climb into the aircraft while they still were in the hangar, before being moved onto the launcher by an automated system.The feasibility of stowing conventional aircraft in Regulus II missile hangars as well as submarine weight, stability, and equilibrium was conducted using the Grayback (SSG 574) with an F11F aircraft.An improved, Mach 3 aircraft eventually was to replace the F11F, a Mach 1+ fighter. The later aircraft would be recovered through the use of an innovative hook-and-cable arresting system. In an emergency, an aircraft set down at sea could be brought back aboard the submarine by crane.Stowage would be provided for aircraft fuel, weapons, and other stores for ten missions per aircraft, that is, a total of 80 missions per submarine. During the preliminary design process, it appeared feasible to increase the number of missions to at east 160 with only minor changes in the submarine design. The pressure hull would have three “sections” – hangar I, hangar II, and the after section, which contained control, crew, reactor, machinery, and related spaces. The after section would have six compartments.The AN-2 variant aircraft-carrying submarine had similar hull lines to the AN-1. However, this variant would operate Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, carried in eight vertical hangars built into the hull forward of the sail structure. Thus the below-deck configuration of the forward hull (hangars I and 11 in the AN-1) would differ considerably from the AN-1.Noting that “Flight deck operations in the conventional meaning of the word do not exist,” the study indicated that four VTOL aircraft could be launched within five minutes of surfacing and eight aircraft in just over nine minutes. These times could be reduced substantially if the engine start and run-up time was accomplished by self-contained starters rather than using shipboard power. Under the most adverse operational launch sequence, the time to launch all eight aircraft was estimated to be 18 minutes. (Adverse sea conditions would be compensated for by moving the aircraft, via deck tracks, to the amidship launchers closest to the ship’s center of buoyancy.)The Boeing study calculated that the AN-1 submarine would cost about half again as much as a Polaris missile submarine (based on 1958 estimates):Nautilus (SSN 571) $75 millionHalibut (SSGN 597) $85 millionPolaris SSGN $100 millionAN-1 carrier $140-150 millionThe aircraft-carrying submarine was not pursued. A number of reasons have been put forward: A questionable operational requirement for submarine-based aircraft, bureaucratic opposition from the Bureau of Ships to a ship concept developed by the Bureau of Aeronautics, and the shortage of submarine construction capability because the Navy was accelerating the construction of both torpedo-attack submarines and Polaris missile submarines.

And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing